A baby is just beginning to be developed and then dies for absolutely no reason because of the person/mother making that mistake to not use protection or such. This in other terms, is like taking a cat or animal and having it be an outdoor pet. Say you have a cat and let it outside so it is an outdoors cat. This cat could get pregnant and then be stuck with their babies anyway, so the only possible way is adoption. Unless you use the term "animal cruelty" and kill it yourself. That's my belief with human babies as well. If they are killed, this is set as cruelty in my book.

Thanks to pro for challenging me to this debate. I will now state my case why abortion is not murder.

1. The zygote doesn't know it existsIf you discover you're pregnant and get an abortion early first trimester, say the third week, your baby is no more than two cells. It has no heart, nervous system, brain or lungs. The brain doesn't start developing until the 7th week. Even then, the baby is no bigger than a pencil eraser. It is not self-aware. It's the equivalent of killing a bacteria cell.

2. It's not functioning as fully as a born human, so it cannot be defined as humanThe heart doesn't start pumping blood until the 6th week, the brain is non-existent until week 7[1], you could say you're not even killing anything. (I got all of the information for these two points from one website)

I will now state reasons a mother would choose to get an abortion rather than give the baby up for adoption.

1. It's cheaper to get an abortion

Depending on what week you get it in during the first trimester, an abortion can cost as little as $350 to over $1,000[2]. It may seem like a lot, but the cost to give birth in a hospital with a C-section was $17,509. Complications would raise the bill to an astonishing $25,433. A natural birth without complications would cost you $10,197. Again, complications would rack up the cost to $13,830[3].

2. The mother may not have a steady job/life

Taking the cost of giving birth and comparing it to the cost of abortion, a woman earning minimum wage would not want her baby to be born into a life of poverty or have to pay for a pregnancy she couldn't afford.

3. The mother may be too young

A girl may be raped and she is pregnant. She has two options: Go through nine months of carrying around a baby (including going to school with it) or get an abortion. It may be easier to shell out the dough to give birth to a baby just to give it up for adoption, or it could be easier to have an abortion.

1. "The zygote doesn't know it exists" For this statement I disagree. The baby may be a cell, but it is still a living thing. Plants are cells, and we still decide to have them right? Right. Babies aren't just toys where you can do whatever you want to them and be perfectly fine with killing it. That is murder.

1. "It's cheaper to get an abortion" Lies my friend. Lies. Putting a baby up for a adoption is tons cheaper. Pay the fee and you are fine. Plus, it's not like you will have the baby long after giving birth to it. I'm not saying as soon as you have it it can go up for adoption either though.

2. The mother may not have a steady job/life: The mother made that mistake in the first place for having the child unless she was raped. If raped, I'm 50% with abortion. You've got the idea of losing the life once again because of abortion, but you've also got the idea of having a child you don't want and just putting it up for adoption.

"Plants are cells, and we still decide to have them right?" Actually, plants are not cells. Plants are otherwise known as producers, and we keep them around because they take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. We both need each other to live. However, that is not the same thing with pregnancy. Plants can produce their own food, any human can't. A mother doesn't need a baby, but a baby needs its mother.

Pro has failed to fill her burden of proof, as such, points should go to me. It was nice debating you, hopester.

You're taking a life. It's bad enough that children are being starved and now you want to kill the ones who haven't even had a chance at life? They could be a president they could be anything. They could mean SOMETHING to the world. Mr. Star did not represent a good backup statement on plants being cells. In the following source I wrote in the comments it is said that plants are in fact cells. Eukaryotic cells to be exact.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro only made appeals to abortion and nonsensical arguments like "Plants are cells and we keep them" which completely ignores the real problem in that killing these plants wouldnt be considered murder and we have the option to have plants or not. Con showed that a zygote isnt a person and therefore cannot be murdered. Con used more sources and non from Wikipedia.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro based his arguments comparing human life to plants and animals. Human life, as we consider, are separate beings and are to be treated differently. So this didn't fulfil the BOP. Con provided sources as pro didn't

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.